Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 233

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd May, 1961.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Dr. Gopal Das Verma, Appellant
Versus
Dr. S. K Bhardwaj and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 278 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K C. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (M/s. S. N Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
K.C.DAPHTARY, NAUNIT LAL, P.L.VOHRA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.T.DESAI

Premises let for both residence and professional purposes with the landlord's consent cannot be considered residential premises under S. 13(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, and the landlord cannot claim ejectment based on bona fide requirement for personal use.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - DELHI AND AJMER RENT CONTROL ACT, 1952 - S. 13(1)(E), S. 13(1)(H), S. 2(G) - PREMISES LET FOR BOTH RESIDENCE AND PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES - EJECTMENT - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - SUITABLE RESIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Dr. Gopal Das Varma, owned a double-storeyed house in New Delhi, with the ground floor consisting of offices and the first floor comprising four flats. One of the flats was occupied by respondent 1, Dr. Bhardwaj, an ear, nose, and throat specialist, who used three rooms for his profession and resided with his wife in the fourth room. The appellant sued for ejectment under S. 13(1)(e) and S. 13(1)(h) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, claiming he required the premises for his personal use and that respondent 1 had built a suitable residence in Golf Link Area.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court found that the premises were let for residential purposes and that respondent 1's use of a portion for his profession did not make it non-residential. It also found that respondent 1 had built a suitable residence in Golf Link Area and granted a decree for ejectment. The appellate court and the High Court reversed the decision, holding that the premises were let for both residence and professional purposes with the appellant's consent, and that respondent 1 could not be ejected under S. 13(1)(e) or S. 13(1)(h) as the Golf Link building was not suitable for conducting business in that locality.
Issues: 1. Whether the premises were let for residential purposes only or for both residence and professional purposes. 2. Whether the appellant had a bona fide requirement for personal use of the premises. 3. Whether respondent 1 had acquired a suitable residence under S. 13(1)(h). 4. Whether respondent 1 could be estopped from claiming that the lease was not solely for residence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The explanation to S. 13(1)(e) of the Act includes premises let for residence but incidentally used for commercial or other purposes with the landlord's consent. Therefore, the premises in question, which were used by respondent 1 for both residence and professional purposes with the appellant's consent, could not be considered residential premises under S. 13(1)(e). 2. Since the premises were not let solely for residential purposes, the appellant could not claim ejectment under S. 13(1)(e) based on his bona fide requirement for personal use. 3. S. 13(1)(h) applies to tenancies created for essential purposes, and requires the tenant to have acquired a suitable residence. In this case, the premises were used for both residence and profession, and the Golf Link building acquired by respondent 1 was not suitable for residence alone. Therefore, S. 13(1)(h) did not apply. 4. The appellant could not raise the argument that respondent 1 should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate, as this plea was not raised at the proper stage and respondent 1 had no opportunity to meet it.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The appellant Dr. Gopal Das Varma owns a double-storeyed house known as 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The ground floor of this house consists of a block of offices and the first floor consists of four flats; three of these are in the occupation of the appellant while the fourth has been let out to respondent 1, Dr. Bhardwaj. Dr. Bharadwaj is an ear, nose, throat specialist, and in one of the four rooms of the flat he and his wife, respondent 2, reside, while the three other rooms are used by him for the purpose of his profession. Respondent 1 appears to have taken the premises on lease as early as 1934 although he executed an agreement of tenancy in favour of the appellant on November 8, 1935. This agreement shows that the appellant agreed to let out his flat to respondent 1 on a rent of Rs. 90/-per month payable in advance. The tenancy was to commence from October 1,1935, end was intended to continue up to September 30, 1936. Parties agreed that the said tenancy could be renewed on terms to be settled later. In fact the tenancy has been renewed from year to year and the flat is still in possession of respondent 1.

2. In October 1953 the appellant sued the two respondents for ejectment on two grounds. He alleged that he required the premises in question for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family and that respondent 1 had recently built a suitable residence for himself in Golf Link Area, New Delhi. The first plea was made under S. 13 (l)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act XXXVIII of 1952) (hereafter called the Act), while the second was raised by reference to S. 13(l)(h) of the Act. According to the appellant, since both the requirements of the Act were satisfied he was entitled to obtain a decree for ejectment against the respondents. The claim thus made by the appellant was denied by the respondents. Respondent 2 pleaded that she was not the tenant of the appellant and she alleged that it was she and not respondent 1 who had built the house in Golf Link Area. Respondent 1 admitted that he was a tenant under the appellant. He, however, contended that the appellant did not require the premises bona fide for his personal use, and he urged that he was using the premises for carrying on his medical profession and as such the appellant was not entitled to eject him. He supported his wife in her plea that the. house built in Golf Link Area belonged to her and not to him.

3. On these pleadings the learned trial judge framed appropriate issues. He found that respondent 1 alone was the tenant of the appellant and that the premises in question had been let to respondent 1 for residential purpose. According to the trial judge the premises in suit had been constructed for residential purposes and the flat in question was let out to respondent exclusively for that very purpose. The trial judge further held that the fact that a portion of the premises was used by respondent 1 for his profession or business would not make the tenancy one for non-residential purposes. In that view he rejected the argument raised by respondent 1 on the explanation to S. 13(1)(e) of the Act. The trial judge also held that it was respondent 1 who had built a house in Golf Link Area and since the said house was suitable for his residence the requirements of S. 13(1)(h) were satisfied. On the question about the bona fide requirements of personal residence pleaded by the appellant under S. 13(1)(e) the trial Court made a finding against him. Even so, as a result of his conclusion under S. 13(1)(h) the trial judge passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the appellant.

4. Both the respondents challenged this decree by preferring an appeal before the Senior Sub Judge at Delhi. The appellate Court held that on the facts proved in the case it cannot be inferred that the premises in suit were built for residential purposes along, and that evidence did not show that the premises in question ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document